אַהֲדָדֵי; כִּי פְּלִיגִי, דְּאִיהוּ קָא שָׁתֵיק וְאִינְהוּ קָמְקַרְקְרָן, מָר סָבַר: מַעֲשֶׂה קָא עָבֵיד בְּהוּ, וּמָר סָבַר: מֵחֲמַת בִּעֲתוּתֵיהּ הוּא דְּקָא עָבְדָן.

each other, and one need not be concerned. They disagree when the lion is quiet and the birds are clucking. One Sage, Shmuel, holds: They are clucking because it is acting upon them, i.e., clawing them, and one Sage, Rav, holds that they are doing this out of fear of the predator, but it is not necessarily clawing them.

אֲמַר אַמֵימָר, הִלְכְתָא; חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְסָפֵק דְּרוּסָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַשִׁי לְאַמֵימָר: הַאי דְּרַב, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, כְּלוֹמַר, לָא סְבִירָא לִי.

Ameimar said: The halakha is that one must be concerned in a case of uncertainty as to whether an animal was clawed. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What about this statement of Rav that one need not be concerned? Ameimar said to him: I did not hear that statement; that is to say, I do not hold in accordance with it.

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַב לְגַבֵּי דִּשְׁמוּאֵל; דְּהַהוּא שַׁרְקְפָא דְּסָפֵק דְּרוּסוֹת דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, שַׁדְרִינְהוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, חַנְקִינְהוּ וּשְׁדַנְהוּ בְּנַהֲרָא; וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ לָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ, לִישְׁרִינְהוּ!

Or if you wish, say instead that Rav retracted his statement and conceded to Shmuel that one must be concerned in a case of uncertainty. As there was a certain basket of birds concerning which there was uncertainty as to whether they had been clawed by a hawk that entered among them, which came before Rav. Rav sent them before Shmuel to issue a ruling, and Shmuel strangled them and threw them in the river. And if it enters your mind that Rav did not retract his statement, then let him permit them for consumption. Why did he send them to Shmuel?

אֶלָּא מַאי, הֲדַר בֵּיהּ? לִיסְרִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא, אַתְרֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הֲוָה.

The Gemara rejects this: Rather, what will you say, that Rav really did retract? If so, let him prohibit them for consumption without sending them to Shmuel. Rather, he sent the birds to Shmuel because it was Shmuel’s place, and although Rav disagreed with Shmuel, it would be improper to issue a contradictory ruling.

לָמָּה לִּי לְמִיחְנְקִינְהוּ? לִישְׁדִּינְהוּ הָכִי בְּנַהֲרָא! מַפְרְחָן וְסָלְקָן.

The Gemara asks: Why do I need Shmuel to strangle the birds? Let him simply throw them into the river as is. The Gemara responds: Shmuel was concerned lest they fly and leave the river and eventually end up in the possession of an unwitting Jew.

וְלִשְׁהִינְהוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ! אָתֵי בְּהוּ לִידֵי תַּקָּלָה. וְלִיזַבְּנִינְהוּ לְגוֹיִם! אָתוּ לְזַבְּנִינְהוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.

The Gemara objects: But let him delay killing them for twelve months. If they survive it will prove that they are not tereifot , and they will be permitted. The Gemara responds: Shmuel was concerned lest people encounter a stumbling block, as they might forget that these birds are prohibited and eat them before twelve months have passed. The Gemara asks: But let him sell them to gentiles so that they will not be a stumbling block. The Gemara responds: Shmuel was concerned that perhaps the gentiles will come to sell them back to Jews.

וְלִיחְנְקִינְהוּ וְלִישְׁדִּינְהוּ לָאַשְׁפָּה! וְלִיטַעֲמִיךְ, נִישְׁדִּינְהוּ לִכְלָבִים! אֶלָּא, לְפַרְסוּמֵי מִלְּתָא דְּאִיסּוּרָא.

The Gemara objects: But let him strangle them and throw them into the garbage. Why did Shmuel throw them into the river? The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, we should throw them to the dogs, as at least then they will come to some use. Rather, Shmuel threw them into the river, a public place, in order to publicize the matter of the prohibition.

הַהוּא בַּר אַוְוזָא דַּהֲוָה בֵּי רַב אַשִׁי, עַל לְבֵינֵי קַנְיָא, נְפַק אֲתָא כִּי מִמַּסְמַס קוֹעֵיהּ דְּמָא. אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי, לָא אָמְרִינַן: סָפֵק כַּלְבָּא סָפֵק שׁוּנָרָא – אֵימַר כַּלְבָּא? הָכָא נַמִי, סָפֵק קַנְיָא סָפֵק שׁוּנָרָא – אֵימַר קַנְיָא מַחְיֵיהּ.

The Gemara relates that there was a certain duck that was in the house of Rav Ashi. The duck entered between the reeds, and it came out with its throat stained with blood. Rav Ashi said: Do we not say: If it is uncertain whether the predator was a dog and uncertain whether it was a cat, I will say that it was a dog, which cannot claw an animal effectively? Here, too, since it is uncertain whether the duck was injured by a reed and uncertain whether it was injured by a cat, I will say that a reed struck it, and the duck is not a tereifa .

אָמְרִי בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים.

§ The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya, Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya, said: A clawed animal, about which the Sages said one must be concerned, requires inspection of the flesh adjacent to the intestines. If the flesh surrounding the intestines reddened, the animal is a tereifa , because the venom will eventually penetrate the body cavity and perforate the intestines themselves.

אֲמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, הָא דִּבְנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא כְּבָר פֵּירְשָׁהּ שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים.

Rav Yosef said: This statement of the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya was already explained by Shmuel, as Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus: A clawed animal, about which they said one must be concerned, requires inspection adjacent to the intestines.

בָּעֵי אִילְפָא: יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה לַסִּימָנִים, אוֹ אֵין דְּרוּסָה לַסִּימָנִים? אֲמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָא דְּבָעֵי אִילְפָא, כְּבָר פֵּירְשָׁהּ רַב חָנָן בַּר רָבָא, דְּאָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רָבָא אָמַר רַב: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הֶחָלָל כּוּלּוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּסִּימָנִין.

Ilfa raises a dilemma: Is there clawing with regard to the simanim , or is there no clawing with regard to the simanim ? Does the venom penetrate the simanim as it does the intestines? Rabbi Zeira said: This dilemma that Ilfa raises was already explained by Rav Ḥanan bar Rava, as Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says that Rav says: A clawed animal, about which they said one must be concerned, requires inspection of the flesh adjacent to the entire body cavity, and even in the area of the simanim .

בָּעֵי אִילְפָא: סִימָנִין שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ, בְּכַמָּה? אֲמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָא דְּבָעֵי אִילְפָא, כְּבָר פֵּירְשָׁהּ רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ – בְּרוּבָּן.

Ilfa raises another dilemma: With regard to simanim that were detached, how much detachment renders the animal a tereifa ? Rabbi Zeira said: This dilemma that Ilfa raises was already explained by Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Shmuel says: With regard to simanim that were detached, if they were detached in their majority the animal is a tereifa .

בָּעֵי רַב אַמִּי: הֲמַסְמָסָה מַהוּ? אֲמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָא דְּבָעֵי רַב אַמִּי, כְּבָר פֵּירְשָׁהּ רַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בִּדְרוּסָה – עַד שֶׁיַּאֲדִים בָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים, נִתְמַסְמֵס הַבָּשָׂר – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ אֵינוֹ.

Rav Ami raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to an animal that was clawed in an area not surrounding the body cavity, such as the legs, and rot was found in the flesh of that area? Rabbi Zeira said: This dilemma that Rav Ami raises was already explained by Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to a clawed animal, the injury does not render it a tereifa unless the flesh adjacent to the intestine reddens; but if the flesh rotted, one views the rotten area as if it does not exist. If the animal would be a tereifa when missing this flesh, it is also a tereifa if the flesh rotted.

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי נִתְמַסְמֵס? אֲמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כָּל שֶׁהָרוֹפֵא גּוֹרְדוֹ וּמַעֲמִידוֹ עַל בָּשָׂר חַי. אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי: כִּי הָוֵינַן בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא אַיְיתוּ קַמָּן הַהִיא רֵיאָה, דְּכִי הֲווּ מְיַתְּבִי לָהּ – יָתְבָה שַׁפִּיר, וְכִי הֲווּ מְדַלּוּ לָהּ – הֲוָה תָּלְחָה וְנָפְלָה תִּילְחֵי תִּילְחֵי, וְטָרֵיפְנָא לָהּ, מִדְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

The Gemara asks: What is considered rotten flesh? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is any flesh in such a state that the doctor scrapes it off and leaves the animal with its raw flesh exposed so that it will heal. Rav Ashi said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Kahana they brought before us a certain lung that, when they would set it down, would sit well, but when they would pick it up it would disintegrate and fall into pieces. And we deemed it a tereifa based on the statement of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, that one views rotten flesh as if it does not exist. Since the animal would be a tereifa if missing the lung (see 42a), it is also a tereifa if the lung is rotten.

רַב נַחְמָן אֲמַר: בְּקוֹץ – עַד שֶׁתִּינָּקֵב לֶחָלָל, בִּדְרוּסָה – מִשֶּׁיַּאֲדִים בָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים. רַב זְבִיד מַתְנֵי הָכִי: בִּדְרוּסָה – מִשֶּׁיַּאֲדִים בָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים, בְּסִימָנִים – עַד שֶׁיַּאֲדִימוּ סִימָנִים עַצְמָם.

Rav Naḥman said: If an animal was pierced by a thorn, it is not a tereifa until it is perforated to the cavity of the body. But in the case of a clawed animal, once the flesh adjacent to the intestines reddens, it is a tereifa . Rav Zevid would teach the halakha in this manner: In the case of a clawed animal, once the flesh adjacent to the intestines reddens it is a tereifa ; but if it was clawed in the simanim , it is not a tereifa unless the simanim themselves redden. If only the flesh around them reddens, the animal is kosher, since the venom may not penetrate to the simanim themselves.

אֲמַר רַב פַּפִּי, בָּעֵי רַב בֵּיבָי בַּר אַבַּיֵי:

Rav Pappi said: Rav Beivai bar Abaye raises a dilemma: